[Congressional Record Volume 147, Number 22 (Thursday, February 15, 2001)]
[Senate]
[Pages S1506-S1508]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

      By Mrs. BOXER (for herself, Ms. Snowe, Mrs. Clinton, Mr. Chafee, 
        Mr. Reid, Ms. Collins, Mr. Leahy, Mr. Jeffords, Ms. Mikulski, 
        Mrs. Feinstein, Mrs. Murray, Mr. Dodd, Mr. Akaka, Mr. Corzine, 
        Mr. Durbin, Mr. Baucus, Mr. Biden, Mr. Feingold, and Mr. 
        Specter):
  S. 367. A bill to prohibit the application of certain restrictive 
eligibility requirements to foreign nongovernmental organizations with 
respect to the provision of assistance under part I of the Foreign 
Assistance Act of 1961; to the Committee on Foreign Relations.
  Mrs. BOXER. Mr. President, within 48 hours of assuming the 
Presidency, President Bush issued a policy that will hurt the women of 
the world. A policy that takes us back to the 1980s, rather than ahead 
to the new century.
  His policy, the Mexico City gag rule, cuts U.S. funding to any 
organization that uses its own funds to provide abortion services. It 
even cuts U.S. funds if the organization uses its own funds to simply 
counsel women on all their options which include abortions.
  As a result, many organizations will be forced to either limit their 
services or simply close their doors to women across the world. And, 
this will cause women and families increased misery and death.
  The current facts are chilling.
  Approximately 78,000 women throughout the world die each year as a 
result of unsafe abortions. At least one-fourth of all unsafe abortions 
in the world are to girls aged 15-19. By 2015, contraceptive needs in 
developing countries will grow by more than 40 percent.
  Make no mistake, the Mexican city gag rule will restrict family 
planning, not abortions.
  The media has mistakenly portrayed the Mexico City policy. I think we 
need to be clear of what this policy does and does not do:
  It does not change the fact that no United States funds can be used 
for abortion services. That is already law, and has been since 1973. It 
does restrict foreign organizations in ways that would be 
unconstitutional here at home.
  It is puzzling for me to understand how anyone could fail to realize 
that family planning is crucial to preventing abortions.
  According to Population Action International, research shows that 
higher levels of contraception use are associated with lower reliance 
on abortion.
  For example, the recent increased availability of modern family 
planning methods has already resulted in a 33 percent drop in the 
abortion rate in Russia and a 60 percent reduction in Hungary.
  Additionally, we know that young girls between the ages of 15 and 19 
are

[[Page S1507]]

twice as likely to die in childbirth as older mothers. Talk about a 
policy that is cruel to girls and young women--this is it.
  Family planning can significantly improve the health of these girls 
and young women by teaching them to postpone childbearing until the 
healthiest times in their life, which would in turn prevent abortions.

  However, as a result of the harsh penalties imposed by the Mexico 
City gag rule, family planning groups will not be able to adequately 
counsel these desperate women.
  Picture a woman who has already walked sometimes half a day to get to 
the nearest clinic. How can we expect these clinics to then tell this 
woman who is seeking services on her own volition, that they cannot 
counsel her on the full array of her legal options when there is no 
other clinic within a hundred miles of them?
  Additionally, the Mexico City policy goes against a fundamental tenet 
of American society . . . freedom of speech.
  That is why today in the Senate today, I am introducing the 
bipartisan ``Global Democracy Promotion Act.''
  The Boxer-Snowe bill aims to overturn the draconian restrictions 
place upon international family planning programs put in place by 
President Bush on January 22. Our bill will allow these organizations 
to continue to provide legal family planning services without 
needlessly restricting their funds.
  Family planning organizations should not be prevented from using 
their own privately raised funds to provide legal abortion services, 
including counseling and referral services.
  These groups should not be forced to relinquish their right to free 
speech in order to receive United States funding. This type of 
restriction is un-American and undermines our key foreign policy goal 
of supporting democracy worldwide.
  The true bipartisan consensus is that family planning organizations 
should be supported, not punished, for helping women in need. We hope 
President Bush will change his mind and reverse his order. If not, we 
will work hard to overturn it.
  I ask unanimous consent that the bill be printed in the Record.
  There being no objection, the bill was ordered to be printed in the 
Record, as follows:

                                 S. 367

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Global Democracy Promotion 
     Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

       Congress finds the following:
       (1) It is a fundamental principle of American medical 
     ethics and practice that health care providers should, at all 
     times, deal honestly and openly with patients. Any attempt to 
     subvert the private and sensitive physician-patient 
     relationship would be intolerable in the United States and is 
     an unjustifiable intrusion into the practices of health care 
     providers when attempted in other countries.
       (2) Freedom of speech is a fundamental American value. The 
     ability to exercise the right to free speech, which includes 
     the ``right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to 
     petition the government for a redress of grievances'' is 
     essential to a thriving democracy and is protected under the 
     United States Constitution.
       (3) The promotion of democracy is a principal goal of 
     United States foreign policy and critical to achieving 
     sustainable development. It is enhanced through the 
     encouragement of democratic institutions and the promotion of 
     an independent and politically active civil society in 
     developing countries.
       (4) Limiting eligibility for United States development and 
     humanitarian assistance upon the willingness of a foreign 
     nongovernmental organization to forgo its right to use its 
     own funds to address, within the democratic process, a 
     particular issue affecting the citizens of its own country 
     directly undermines a key goal of United States foreign 
     policy and would violate the United States Constitution if 
     applied to United States-based organizations.
       (5) Similarly, limiting the eligibility for United States 
     assistance on a foreign nongovernmental organization's 
     willingness to forgo its right to provide, with its own 
     funds, medical services that are legal in its own country and 
     would be legal if provided in the United States constitutes 
     unjustifiable interference with the ability of independent 
     organizations to serve the critical health needs of their 
     fellow citizens and demonstrates a disregard and disrespect 
     for the laws of sovereign nations as well as for the laws of 
     the United States.

     SEC. 3. ASSISTANCE FOR FOREIGN NONGOVERNMENTAL ORGANIZATIONS 
                   UNDER PART I OF THE FOREIGN ASSISTANCE ACT OF 
                   1961.

       Notwithstanding any other provision of law, regulation, or 
     policy, in determining eligibility for assistance authorized 
     under part I of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 (22 U.S.C. 
     2151 et seq.), foreign nongovernmental organizations--
       (1) shall not be ineligible for such assistance solely on 
     the basis of health or medical services including counseling 
     and referral services, provided by such organizations with 
     non-United States Government funds if such services do not 
     violate the laws of the country in which they are being 
     provided and would not violate United States Federal law if 
     provided in the United States; and
       (2) shall not be subject to requirements relating to the 
     use of non-United States Government funds for advocacy and 
     lobbying activities other than those that apply to United 
     States nongovernmental organizations receiving assistance 
     under part I of such Act.

  Mrs. FEINSTEIN. Mr. President, I rise today to offer my strong 
support for the ``Global Democracy Act of 2001'', introduced by my 
friend and colleague from California, Senator Boxer.
  Last month, President Bush announced that he was reinstating the 
``global gag rule'' restricting United States assistance to 
international family planning organizations. I was extremely 
disappointed and amazed that the President opted to start his 
Administration with such a divisive action.
  If women are to be able to better their own lives and the lives of 
their families, they must have access to the educational and medical 
resources needed to control their reproductive destinies and their 
health. International family planning programs reduce poverty, improve 
health, and raise living standards around the world; they enhance the 
ability of couples and individuals to determine the number and spacing 
of their children.
  The ``Global Democracy Promotion Act of 2001'' will allow foreign Non 
Governmental Organizations that receive U.S. family planning assistance 
to use non-U.S. funds to provide legal abortion services, including 
counseling and referrals and will lift the restrictions on lobbying and 
advocacy.
  The United States must reclaim its leadership role on international 
family planning and reproductive issues. The United States must renew 
its commitment to help those around the world who need and want our 
help and assistance. I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
                                   ____
                                 
      By Mr. McCAIN (for himself and Mr. Hollings):
  S. 368. A bill to develop voluntary consensus standards to ensure 
accuracy and validation of the voting process, to direct the Director 
of the National Institute of Standards and Technology to study voter 
participation and emerging voting technology, to provide grants to 
States to improve voting methods, and for other purposes; to the 
Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation.
  Mr. McCAIN. Mr. President, on behalf of the nearly 280 million 
Americans in this country, today I am introducing the American Voting 
Standards and Technology Act. After one of the closest and most 
contested elections in our Nation's history, Americans want to have 
complete confidence in the electoral process. We can accomplish that 
goal by ridding politics of large, unregulated contributions, and by 
ensuring that every vote is counted and recorded accurately.
  The key to achieving meaningful reform and to restoring Americans' 
faith in government, is finding both a short-term and a long-term 
solution to the widespread abuses of the past election. I have devised 
a two-pronged strategy toward realizing these necessary changes in our 
electoral system. First, on January 22, Senator Feingold and I 
introduced the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2001. This measure 
bans soft money contributions, restricts corporate and union spending 
on electioneering ads, and provides for greater disclosure and stronger 
election laws. I look forward to bringing campaign finance reform back 
to the floor next month.
  The bill that I am introducing today represents the second part of my 
electoral reform strategy. One of the most flagrant violations of our 
democratic electoral process was highlighted this past November by the 
overwhelming number of precincts who reported voting machine flaws. 
This is an embarrassment to our democracy. The American Voting 
Standards and Technology

[[Page S1508]]

Act was written to directly address the root of these voting 
controversies--the actual machines. In the 2000 election, pre-scored 
punch-card ballots were used by one in three voters. These archaic 
``votomatic'' machines, engineered in the 1960's, continue to be 
employed throughout the country, yet their ability to accurately record 
voters is questionable. In 1988, The National Institute of Standards 
and Technology, NIST, recommended the elimination of prescored ballot 
cards, but this recommendation was unfortunately never heeded.
  To compound the problems with pre-scored punch cards, numerous 
studies reveal that throughout the country, ballots cast by African 
Americans were nullified at a much higher rate than those of 
Caucasians. In Atlanta's Fulton County, which uses old punch-card 
voting machines, one of every 16 ballots for president was invalidated, 
while two largely white neighboring counties, Cobb and Gwinnett, using 
more modern equipment had a rate of 1 in 200. Similar patterns were 
found in Florida and Illinois. We cannot encourage and expect every 
American to vote if we ignore the inequalities that are inherent in our 
entire voting system.
  The National Association of Secretaries of States recently issued 
fifteen recommendations aimed at avoiding the problems of last year's 
presidential election. The resolution recommends that States: Ensure 
equal access to the election system for the elderly, disabled, and 
minority communities; modernize voting machines and equipment; and 
conduct aggressive voter education and outreach programs. The 
resolution also advocates that Congress authorize an update of the 
voluntary federal voting standards and fund the development of 
voluntary management standards for each voting system. Senator Hollings 
and I have written the American Voting Standards and Technology Act in 
response to these recommendations.
  This legislation that we are introducing today has three targets: 
First, it directs NIST to develop voluntary consensus standards to 
ensure the accuracy and validation of the voting process. Second, it 
authorizes matching grants to State agencies to purchase new or 
rehabilitated voting equipment to improve the ability of the public to 
cast a timely and accurate vote for the candidate of their choice. 
Finally, it authorizes grants throughout the Department of Commerce to 
State agencies to strengthen voter education campaigns. Both Senator 
Hollings and I have been working closely with NIST to begin this 
process now so that the next election will not bring the same confusion 
and frustration at the polls.
  How can we encourage young Americans to vote if they believe their 
vote may not be counted? We must modernize our voting machinery and 
improve our voting process without barraging the States and local 
governments with excessive rules and regulations. The American Voting 
Standards and Technology Act accomplishes these goals.
  Mr. HOLLINGS. Mr. President, it has been said that there's no system 
worse than democracy--except for all of the other ones. What this 
aphorism reveals is that though democracy, in its republican form of 
elections, is the best form of government that we know of at this 
point, it nevertheless has its shortcomings, be they human or 
mechanical. A close election certainly tends to highlight these human 
and mechanical flaws in our voting systems. This was never more proven 
than by last year's Presidential election. Last November and December 
stories of overvotes, undervotes, and hanging chads flooded the media. 
Many voters complained that confusing butterfly ballots led them to 
make unintended choices, while others claimed they were denied the 
opportunity to vote by being left off of the registration rolls or 
through intimidation.
  Unfortunately, these problems are not new. We've had difficulties 
using punch cards and other machine-readable ballots for more than 30 
years. Federal officials were made aware of these issues as early as 
1978, by a National Bureau of Standards, now NIST, study, Science & 
Technology: Effective Use of Computing Technology in Vote-Tallying. 
That study--and another in 1988--found difficulties in vote-tallying 
stemming from management failures, technology failures, and human 
operational failures. The 1978 report cited major difficulties in 7 
cities. One of the key recommendations was the elimination of the pre-
scored punch card, similar to the kind used in Palm Beach County's 
Votomatic machines.
  We know that there is a problem, the question is what are we going to 
do about it? Senator McCain and I have one answer--the American Voting 
Standards and Technology Act, which we are introducing today. In short, 
the Act would direct the National Institute of Standards and Technology 
to develop voluntary consensus standards to ensure the accuracy and 
validation of the voting process from voter registration through any 
recount. Quite simply, NIST knows standards--it has been in the 
standards game for over 100 years. Its experts know how to work with 
stakeholders like state and local governments and private sector 
technology leaders to build valid, usable, reliable standards that 
people trust. The agency updates its standards regularly.
  NIST's voluntary voting standards could set a threshold for accuracy, 
maintenance, and usability of voting systems that would feed into the 
second leg of our program--matching grants to State and local 
government agencies to purchase new or rehabilitated voting equipment. 
We want to give priority in this program to the places least able to 
afford state of the art voting equipment--the precincts with high 
unemployment and low income levels.
  However, because we don't want to buy new equipment if no one knows 
how to use it, our bill would authorize the Department of Commerce to 
give grants to State agencies to strengthen voter education campaigns. 
We want voters to understand how to use the technology that is in their 
polling place and how to determine if their vote will be correctly 
counted.
  The right to vote is the most fundamental right bestowed upon 
Americans by the U.S. Constitution. There are millions of Americans who 
lost faith in the guarantee and exercise of this fundamental right due 
to the circumstances of the last election. Senator McCain and I do not 
claim to know how to restore the American people's faith in our voting 
systems. However, we do have an idea that setting basic performance 
standards, helping election officials acquire systems which meet those 
standards, and helping voters use those systems is part of the 
solution. When we return from the President's Day recess, we plan to 
schedule hearings to work through the details of our legislation and 
improve it. We realize that our American Voting Standards and 
Technology Act is only one piece of the pie, and we also look forward 
to working with other Senators who are examining other aspects of the 
electoral system.
                                 ______